- Canon is turning its head big time towards video [away from still?],- The co-existence of the EOS 1D C 4K DSLR and the C500 4K is very confusing,- It doesn't seem to make so much sense to use a huge DSLR pro body to capture a smallish APS-H crop at 4K,- Their product naming is a disaster,- ...

- Canon is turning its head big time towards video [away from still?],That's because there is a demand for still pros to shoot motion, both in commercial and journalism- The co-existence of the EOS 1D C 4K DSLR and the C500 4K is very confusing,They are not in the same league. The 1D target the pro reporter, wich will use his-her dslr mainly and ocasionally shoot motion as plan B. The C500 targets the Epic's users.- It doesn't seem to make so much sense to use a huge DSLR pro body to capture a smallish APS-H crop at 4K,No, but if you consider the potential target of the 1D it makes sense IMO.- Their product naming is a disaster,The C500 sounds like a Mercedes car name.- ...

Nooo...in the parlement house I see more and more shooting politics handheld, just like stills. They go to the newspapers' web. I even suspect (but I'm not sure 100%) that they actually extract more and more still directly from the movie shots.

I have to agree that I am a bit puzzled by the 1D C: Canon's marketing talk and the extra price over the 1D X suggests that video is the primary function of this camera ... and yet it has no viewfinder useful for video, just a rear LCD (which the forums keep telling us is absolutely unacceptable for any vaguely serious photography) plus a "vestigial" OVF and mirror. Vestigial for video usage, that is. Is there an accessory EVF for it? If intended to be steadied with a tripod, boom, steady-cam or such, why not use the C500, and use 4K frame grabs from that for occasional stills?

May be it is a "transitional" stop-gap design, on the way to a future camera more fully adapted to "video plus occasional 35mm format stills".

And yes, it is noticable that every recent upper level Canon camera seems to have video as a high priority design factor, even the 1D X with its sensor of exactly the right pixel width for decimation to 1920x1080 HD video.

- Canon is turning its head big time towards video [away from still?],- The co-existence of the EOS 1D C 4K DSLR and the C500 4K is very confusing,- It doesn't seem to make so much sense to use a huge DSLR pro body to capture a smallish APS-H crop at 4K,- Their product naming is a disaster,

I suppose it is simply a case of deliver products where there are people prepared to pat money so that you can make a profit.

The consumer market seems to be "more for less" ... until it is "everything for nothing", which isn't very profitable.

The APS-H crop for 4K will be because the 4196x2160 is about a 1.4 crop on the 1DX sensor and that otherwise, I expect the results of trying to squeeze the 1DX sensor into 4K produce either nasty video problems or it is just computationally difficult at that data rate.

Maximium frame rate to a recorder 30FPS at full res, 60FPS and half res.

Ends.

What we got...

The EOS-1D Cís full-frame 24 x 36mm 18.1-megapixel Canon CMOS sensor makes possible a wide range of creative imaging expression, such as image-blur effects. Additional features include an expanded sensitivity range of up to ISO 25600 for exceptional motion-imaging results with reduced noise even in low-light settings. The cameraís ability to record 8-bit 4:2:2 4K and 8-bit 4:2:0 Full HD video to CF cards eliminates the need for an external recorder and enables workflows with increased mobility. If desired, however, captured video (excluding 4K video) can be output from the cameraís HDMI terminal to an external recorder using an uncompressed YCbCr 8-bit 4:2:2 signal.

4K video is captured by an approximately APS-H-sized portion of the full image sensor, while Full HD video can be captured in the userís choice of two different imaging formats:

The standard Full HD setting captures the full 36mm width of the CMOS sensor to achieve the largest possible angle of view for any compatible lens.

An optional Super 35 crop setting enables cinematographers to match the industry-standard imaging format and angle of view achieved by traditional motion picture cameras. This enables video footage from the EOS-1D C camera to more closely match the look of footage from other cameras in multi-camera shooting environments.

I agree, Bernard. Canon seems very focused on giving still photographers video capability, in addition to competing with Red, Sony and to some degree, Arri, with their C-series video cameras.

At NAB 2009 in Las Vegas, no one except a handful of people knew about the 5D2 video capability & quality. Almost everyone I spoke with that year had not heard about the camera nor its capabilities. Most surprisingly, Canon had no idea of its popularity. They brought this little gem to the market and didn't even realize what would happen. They were clueless.

My hunch is they're overreacting a bit. Riding a wave of enthusiasm.

I, for one, think Nikon has the edge in the still camera/sensor race with their D800.

It's clear now why 1DsmkIII users did not get an upgrade just BS about combining two cameras in one, for the same reason 5D users also did not get a mp increase. That would compromise the video functions in the camera so Canon thought.Then of course Nikon D800 happened and Canon looked to have missed a trick for still shooters. The 800 is an upgrade for 1DsmkIII users and 5D users. The video in the D X or 5D is not compelling enough an upgrade and now we see why. Canon want to squeeze a bit more out of the stone for the C. I like the look of the new 1D C, if that had been the upgrade for the DsmkIII at the X price I could see it as an upgrade. Now I'm thinking why do we need the X with compromised video when clearly the camera was designed to be the C. Canon are too tricky for their own good.

One of the troubles Canon have given them selves is what appears to me to be tellling half truths.

To me 1080p means 1080 lines of vertical resolution

Actually we know that the 5d does around 600-700

That makes be deeply suspicious of any claim for 4k that is not coming off a sensor that has 4 thousand pixels as its stills base along that axis

Canon, RED and Arri are al playing that game lately: talking of 3K, 4K, or 5K when they mean the horizontal pixel count of a Bayer CFA sensor, so that the resolution is distinctly less than a projector of that spec. can handle. Sony's 4K projectors for cinemas (and now for home use) deliver all three colors at all 4000 positions along a horizontal line, and at all 2160 vertical positions, so something like a 6K Bayer CFA sensor will be needed to make full use of that.

To put it another way: the C300 delivers fully on its 1920x1080 claim by producing each of those output pixels from a photosite cluster ofGRBGwhile the C500 has a sensor of almost the same photosite count and the same Bayer CFA, but the spec. jumps from "1080p" to "4K"! (This is not to deny that the C500 sensor might be improved in other ways.)

At this point Cinema EOS is simply producing cameras aimed at Hollywood, & Broadcast productions. Their line up allows all three cine cameras to be intercut easily, & I believe Canon will be very sucsessful in this market.

It's still to be seen if they'll produce cameras for the rest of the markets, but I imagine they will. They've only just entered the race, & they're moving fast.

When it comes to using a new Camera like the Canon C300, I donít do camera tests to see how it performs. I prefer to battle test it on location. When HBO asked me to shoot a promo for their TV series Game of Thrones, it was the a perfect opportunity to see how the C300 compared in an interview setting alongside the benchmark for digital cinema capture: the Arri Alexa. I shot with two Arri Alexas as my A and B cam and two Canon C300ís as my C and D cam. The A and C camera were on a fisher dolly. The B cam was on a Dana Dolly to the side, and I had the D cam shooting profile long lens shot.

The C300 had just been delivered to my door step, and I got a call from John Krueger, a director whom I met at our HV Bootcamp 2 years ago. John and I first worked together about one year ago. The current spot was for El Pollo Loco, and the concept was a very action oriented camera, with snap zooms and quick handheld push ins and pull outs. I thought the Canon C300 would be the perfect camera for this job, lightweight and maneuverable. Taking advantage of Canon log to expand my latitude for the day exteriors as well as interiors for shooting with flaming chickens would be essential. We rigged the C300ís with lightweight zooms and readied for ACTION!

Canon went from being surprised by the overwhelming response of the original 5d, which makes zero sense since indie film makers, smaller tv productions, commercial producers for everything from big international spots to web ads have been asking (make that begged) for a digital cinema camera, (any cinema digital camera) that had a frame large enough to throw some focus and a filmic look.

That's why I jumped on RED as soon as I could, not because I thought the price was brilliant, or the RED mystique, but because the R1 worked and the files look like cinema film (at least in my opinion). So many others "video" cameras looked like video.

Also RED had a fairly stable (though changing) workflow that wasn't that difficult for a still photographer to learn and use.

I talk about autofocus and I don't see that it has to be mandatory but I do know at times it's useful. Hang the crew size, but look at schedules. Sometimes you just need that shot where two people walk through a crowd with a long lens and doing that manually is fine, but it goes from 4 takes to 8 takes if you work manually.

Also in the motion imagery business, anything that can go weird goes weird. Your perfect take has some security guard walk past the front of the lens, or some civilian takes 4 cell phone flashes while you shooting that perfect moment.

Anyway, Canon's focus on Hollywood sounds glamourous but Hollywood doesn't toss out money on the small to medium scale, just the huge blockbuster or medium priced filler movie productions.

When you compare the amount of real paying productions, comparing business to business industrials (a hollywood term, not mine), advertising, news, small indie production, the numbers are probably Hollywood 1, all others 10,000.

To me that's where a $25,000 pl mount canon falls down. Maybe it will help that it will cut easily with a C-300 and a 1dx, but in reality it's never really $25,000 if your a buy rather than rent guy, because you need two cameras, if only for backup, you need glass, rails, hoods, monitors all sorts of cables and not to leave out storage space that would make the Science department of UCLA wince and most asc deepees don't give a rats ____ about post production.

Had the new canon come out with autofocus, changeable mounts, and got to the price of a Scarlet instead of climbing towards epic territory then it would gain my attention, but Canon didn't call me, I am sure they talked to the studios and a whole group of ASC deepeees. The thing is other than owning a 5d2 and a meter, most DP's don't own anything, they rent and the style of the production and production company plays as big a part of deciding what camera package will be used as the dp or director.

We're into the 4th leg of a 4 country gig, just finishing Moscow, then on to Italy and England. It's funny, most of the time the very last thing we think about is cameras, other than what is most reliable. Yesterday was the brutal day of brutal and I went with the R-1 or anything that allowed a lot of lighting and planning, the Sony fs100 for anything shot fast and moving and (most due to autofocus) and the Scarlet as a C cam just to give the editor some options. If I had brought my second R1 the scarlet would have stayed home. I think the data could be broken down 75% R1, 25% Sony and and another 25% B cam scarlet.

If I was in the Canon world only it would have been a C500, a C500 and . . . . a C500.

The one thing I do know is coming from a still background, film crews drive me nuts. I can appreciate the specialties and skills but they move slow like a large army (even small crew) where still guys move fast and multi task. It always breaks my brain when I see a sound tech take their little kit and walk past 3 swings that are picking everything in sight, or a 6'4" focus puller that takes his little shoulder bag of sound kit and if someone says, "hey can you grab that LED and hand it to me and he replies, "I don't do that mate".

When guys like Mr. Halibut are shooting 3 seconds of a 30 second spot, laying tracks, firing up generators, using fisher dollys that weigh more than a Toyota Prius, we're shooting from a wheelchair, so the still mindset to the film mindset is really different.

Sometimes when I look at the new Canon cinema cameras I here this voice that says "I don't do that mate".

What confuses me is Canon releases yet another update to their mid-range zoom, & doesn't include image stabilization. A stabilized 24-70 would have got my money in a heart beat, especially for motion work.

I have never seen a (non raw) video image that is not put to shame by a still of 'the same' resolution

There are two very good reasons for this:

1) A HD video frame form these cameras have 1920x1080 resolution for luma channel only (basically the B&W picture), as they use 4:2:0 color compression already before the video codec compression, they start with 960x540 pixel resolution for color. No wonder video frames look bad compared to a real TIFF or JPEG. By the way this same 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 compression is used on TV broadcasts, DVD and BluRay also, but we do not notice it with moving images. Better pro level video cameras use 4:2:2 throwing away only half of the color information right at the start. Only the most expensive cameras with even more expensive data recorders can capture 4:4:4 at full quality.

2) In camera codecs are very lossy to keep the data rates manageable. That 4:2:0 8-bit video signal would be about 720Mb/sec uncompressed, but then "unnecessary" data is thrown out to squeeze the signal to 25 Mb/sec. From the original 4:4:4 data at 1440 Mb/sec we arrive to compressed 4:2:0 data at 25 Mb/sec, only 1.7% of the original data stream remains. Compared to a 14 bit stills frame something has to give...

Recording "raw quality" video with a DSLR would require data writing speeds of 1 Gb/sec filling a 32 GB card in little over 4 minutes. Fastest cards now can write about 10% of that speed.

I see the Canon cinema model as something Canon made for those photographers/videographers who want to play with 4K (not really needed yet in real life) and have the money to get that camera. It can be perfectly well used as a pro stills camera also, which it basically is at heart. I am using 5D2 for professional video, because camera is "free", takes high quality video when used in controlled situations without sound sync. For ENG & documentary stuff I take XF305. It is funny that camera companies add these cheap but extremely HQ video capabilities to their cameras and most people* seem to only complain. We should be grateful.

*) mostly those who do not understand video and cinema business and production.